He doesn't use the phrase, but this is basically talking about taboo trade-offs and value conflicts - and what really strikes me is that this isn't problem, rather, these technologies make it so we can no longer ignore the questions that value conflicts pose.
That is, we've already recognized the question of "would you kill one to kill ten?", we haven't yet needed an explicit answer or decision process.
(Well, that's not quite true. The Triage system for medical care during disasters, for instance, but that's not everyday everywhere like driving is)
...but, AFAIK, a Koan tries to thwart understanding in order to communicate an otherwise impossible to describe concept. By preventing understanding yet asking for investigation, a koan communicates its actual content through your investigation, rather than the successful translation of the words into your thoughts.
Yes, that's more or less how I think of koans too. (There's also the fact that in the tradition that originated them, koans were given in the context of a personal relationship between teacher and student. We missed that when we turned them into intellectual gimmicks.)
But the point is that this metaprogramming business is not impossible to describe.
+1, but I think you want to keep the column width shorter. Took me a bit to figure out why browsing was harder than on Slashdot, but I think that's what it is.
Sticking my foot out - Panopticons are not a bad thing. They're actually a really good thing, because they, theoretically, let you get a lot more security without losing a lot of liberty (instead, you lose privacy).
The problem people have - universally in my limited experience - is with the people and institutions behind the cameras, not the cameras themselves. If CCTV is Big Brother, isn't neighborhood watch something like Little Brother?
The ability to eavesdrop through cell phones, even where they're not making calls, is pretty similar (although probably more effective) to the capability of bugging light switches:
I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, sorry. Passive CCTV is one thing. Massive spying on unrelated civilians is another. Bugging criminals' phones if you have a warrant is yet another. I don't believe any reasonable discussion can take place if you throw every possible reason and means of recording anything into one bucket.
There are different uses and different situations. People can have different opinions about them too. I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around), while bugging phones by law enforcement needs to be very tightly regulated. But those scenarios should have very little in common.
>I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, sorry.
The thread started with someone positing that panopticons aren't a bad thing, hence the mention of East Germany (a low tech attempt at a state panopticon) and segued to discussion of the modern state's surveillance capabilities in comparison with East Germany.
>I believe for example that CCTV is exactly as legal as anyone taking a photos / movies of the police for example (and the other way around)
They both fall under similar laws, yes, but the big difference between ad-hoc amateur surveillance and centralized, automated surveillance is the capability of realtime analysis of location, association, etc.
<paranoid>Within a surveillance society, however, most of the effort involved with the loss of liberty is taken care of by the loss of privacy. Once you can track someone's whereabouts constantly, in realtime, and gain access their communications, know where they've been, where they plan to be, what assets they have, and who their friends are, ending their liberty becomes a minor exercise in telling the black vans where to be and when.</paranoid>
We must negotiate with nosy, judgmental primates for food and shelter. "Liberty" to ruin my life is meaningless; I can't actually do or say anything sufficiently controversial without privacy.
(Jumping ship from the other link to the same story)
Success metric fail.
Then again - What is the success metric for education? Attendance is (IMHO) pretty terrible, and standardized testing hasn't worked out the best - so what is it?
A classic answer (but still, probably not all that great of one) is jobs upon graduation - but that doesn't help in elementary school.
So, how would you go about turning such long-term metrics as "employment in ten years" into short term metrics, to figure out what to do next week?
Given that technology is supposed to increase efficiency (meaning fewer can do the work of more) I'm not sure that jobs are a great measure of educational success, or even the ideal goal of education.
We've seen the transition from almost all of society being involved in primary production to a small minority working in "big agriculture". Broad swathes of industry (construction, manufacturing, transport & logistics) being replaced by machines. Why do we assume there will even be a demand for labour which meets the needs of 90%+ of the population in 10 years time?
Often the counter-argument raised to this point is that "other jobs" will replace those which become defunct through new technology - instead of someone picking the crops by hand, they will maintain the harvesting machine. It seems to me there is a natural ceiling on the amount of productive work available before people simply end up rent-seeking/extracting value without creating anything in return - ie. trading futures on those crops, suing one another for selling dubious financial products which benefit no-one, and acting as social media liaison officers for the agro-business, financial services firm and law firm in question.
In my view optimising the education system to produce these outcomes (and then congratulating ourselves when everyone is gainfully "employed") misses the point by a fair margin.
Despite plenty of attention and funding, test scores continue to get worse. It's pretty clear that we have no idea what the solution to the education problem is. So it makes the most sense to try as many different things as possible until we stumble on a solution by accident.
So let every school try their own thing. Publish long-term metrics. Let parents choose where to send their children.
Standardization and centralization of school funding are part of the problem at this point. Tests are great at measuring -- until they become standardized and high-stakes, at which point the pressure causes teachers to start spending all their time "teaching to the test."
Also, many people have an incorrect assumption that every child has the same destiny. The very name of Bush's education masterpiece, "No Child Left Behind," implies that you'll dumb things down to the level of the worst student in the class. High school career counseling often pushes college on students who simply aren't cut out for it, while perfectly honorable but less prestigious life destinations, like the military or skilled trades, are starving for new recruits.
Then again - What is the success metric for education? Attendance is (IMHO) pretty terrible, and standardized testing hasn't worked out the best - so what is it?
A classic answer (but still, probably not all that great of one) is jobs upon graduation - but that doesn't help in elementary school.
So, how would you go about turning such long-term metrics as "employment in ten years" into short term metrics, to figure out what to do next week?
Unfortunately, the school get their money based on how many kids go to their school. They have to keep track, if they don't or if students aren't showing regularly, they lose funding.
What I'm saying is that using attendance as the metric to determine funding sucks and we should find a better way.
Success metrics are how you determine whether a change has worked, and they are how you determine where to put more resources. So if your success metric is attendance, you're going to maximize attendance, not quality of education.
Do you remember EA Spouse? Although it looks defunct now, the spouse, Erin Hoffman, went on to found GameWatch[.org], which aimed to address these issues. AFAIK, they at least curbed the worst offenses, like those that led to the scandal, but...
If you could get enough studios to realize the important of a good QA department, there'd at least be a niche to form a company dedicated to it, where skilled QA could get what they deserve.
That is, we've already recognized the question of "would you kill one to kill ten?", we haven't yet needed an explicit answer or decision process.
(Well, that's not quite true. The Triage system for medical care during disasters, for instance, but that's not everyday everywhere like driving is)